17 March 2012 10:01 PM

Angry about gay marriage? Mr Slippery will be SO happy

Hardly a day passes without someone ringing me up or writing to me to say that they now realise that our Prime Minister, Mr Slippery, is a fraud.

Many say how sorry they are that they refused to believe me when I told them this, over and over again, before the last Election.

Well, as the Scottish pastor said to his wayward flock as they called up to him from the flames of Hell ‘We didn’t know!’, I reply smugly ‘You know now’.

Why it took them all so long, I don’t know. Mr Slippery’s shamefaced U-turn on the EU’s Lisbon Treaty happened before the Election, for all to see.

But people would keep telling me that he somehow ‘really means it’ about his (rather feeble) scheme to recognise marriage in the tax system and his claim that he would do something to curb the Human Rights industry.

They seem to have thought that one day he would rip off his suit and reveal himself to be ‘SuperTory’.

Well, as for marriage, he now claims to be much more concerned about helping a few hundred homosexuals get married than about helping millions of heterosexuals to stay married.

This is, in fact, a wind-up. I shouldn’t think Mr Slippery cares even slightly about homosexuals, and I wonder what he used to say about them in private before he was beguiled by Samantha’s dolphin tattoo and her fake cockney accent, and learned how to be cool.

But he knows that driving homosexual marriage through Parliament will enrage the suburban voters he despises. He longs to be assailed by them, because it will make him look good among the Guardian-reading metropolitans he wants to win over.

As for ‘Human Rights’, do not believe the piffle about how the Liberal Democrats have somehow sabotaged Mr Slippery’s commission on this subject. Mr Slippery sabotaged it himself.

He packed it from the start with people he could rely on to make sure that nothing changed. Alas for him, he got one appointment wrong, that of Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, who had the integrity to resign when it was clear to him that he was taking part in a fake.

In one of the biggest political developments of the year (largely ignored by most of the political media, who wait for Downing Street to tell them what to write) Dr Pinto-Duschinsky revealed that the commission had been fixed.

Does anyone really believe the Prime Minister couldn’t have prevented this if he had wanted to? Well, anyone who believes that deserves what he is going to get. The rest of us don’t.

Anna deserves some genuine Fifties glamour

I see that the lovely Anna Friel is to appear in a film about the Fifties, a favourite period for movie-makers.

But what is it about? It is about a squalid pornographer, the late Paul Raymond.

Why do our film producers steer away from big subjects and concentrate on this sort of marginal, low tripe? A genuine drama could be made (despite the BBC’s recent abject failure in The Hour) about the Suez crisis of 1956, if Fifties glamour is what they want.

Vanishing into the euro-gloom

Darkness is falling on this country in more ways than one. As free speech and thought are squeezed by ‘Equality and Diversity’ codes, our power supplies are threatened by Green lunacy and by our subjugation to Brussels.

An EU directive on ‘large combustion plants’ has set rigid time limits on the operation of coal-fired power stations. They are now running out of hours faster than anyone expected.

The first to be halted for ever will be Kingsnorth in Kent, a perfectly viable plant that must now shut in March next year. Many more coal-burning stations will be closed by order of the EU by 2015. Several nuclear plants also need to close soon.

Let’s hope that 2015 is very windy. If not, it could be the year we become the first cold country in the Third World.

It's not funny and it's not clever

Last week I had my first encounter with the alleged comedian Russell Brand.

Mr Brand, co-culprit in the Sachsgate affair, was arguing (if that is the word for his technique) in favour of liberalising the laws on drugs.

I suggested that people like him are selfish kids pursuing pleasure at the expense of others.

I am afraid I teased him a bit (Why does he wear that hat? Why do people think he is funny?).

He then gave an excellent imitation of a tree-climbing rodent cheated of its nuts, using a voice that sounded like a wonky hot-air hand-dryer in a public loo.

The exchange can be found easily on YouTube. I think it gives a pretty good idea of the difference between the pro and anti-drug causes.

Does the Prime Minister really need benefits?

If your Government sets out to restrict welfare payments to those who really need them, you do rather open yourself to scrutiny on your own claims.

The Prime Minister plans to take Child Benefit away from higher-rate taxpayers on the grounds that they don’t need it. He has also cut housing benefit so that welfare recipients cannot live better than people who work for a living.

Both these are reasonable steps. But in that case, what do we think of the fact that the Tory leader, who is by no means poor, claimed Disability Living Allowance?

I know, I know. All of us must sympathise with the Premier over the tragedy which befell his son Ivan. And I, of course, do so.

But should that sympathy get in the way of a reasonable examination of relevant personal behaviour by our head of Government?

The fact that Our Leader claimed disability payments was revealed by him, in an answer to a Labour MP, Joan Ruddock, during Prime Minister’s Questions in the Commons on Wednesday, March 7.

I have sought further information from No 10 Downing Street and at the time of writing have had no response. But I should say that for a couple as rich as the Camerons undoubtedly are, the sums involved (probably no more than £150 a week) cannot have been vital.

In any case, they do not compare to his enormous and still little-known claims for mortgage interest on his substantial country house near Witney.

I have always wondered whether he really needed to borrow £350,000, or indeed needed a house at all in a constituency only 70 miles from Parliament.

But I have absolutely no doubt that he did not, in any true sense of the word, need you and me to fork out roughly £1,700 a month in mortgage interest payments on that house, for eight long years. We might call this payment ‘Parliamentary Housing Benefit’. Worse than a duck house, any day, I’d say.

Is there a pattern here? I personally think this keenness to apply for other people’s money, even when he has lots of his own, undermines claims about ‘all being in it together’.

How rich is he really? We do not know. But I think he was rich enough to manage without filling in the claim forms.

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Mr Hitchens,

I am taking the time too write this comment from the perspective of someone from the younger generation (under 18's) who understands enough about politics and current affairs too realize that you're opinions and values do not represent the Britain that I consider myself a part of.

How dare you generalize that the legal recognition of same sex marriage in these Isles only affects, as you so ignorantly phrase "A few hundred homosexuals."

I am one of those 'homosexuals' and my tax payer's money is just as green as yours, why shouldn't I and the people of my community be entitled too the same civil rights as everybody else in this country? I am a strong believer that everyone is entitled too their personal beliefs and values whether they disagree against my own or not, I'd like too think that a man of your stature would follow by the same principle yet the biased terms you use in your writing displays not only your in-compassion for other people who differ from yourself, but also your ignorance too modern pressing issues and your lack of coherent argument.

Yes, I fully understand why a person of your background, social class and religion would disagree with the term 'Marriage' being applied to couples who do not fit what the definition of that term means by biblical standards in regards too the gender binary, however in today's society 'Marriage' is recognized globally as a civil contract recognized in the eyes of the government and legal system, as a commitment between two people.

'Civil Union' and 'Marriage' is a form of segregation, Have you ever took into consideration that by stating that one is in a civil partnership/civil union, they are forced too publicly acknowledge that they are married too someone of the same sex? As I'm sure you can imagine Mr Hitchens they're certain places where I don't feel its anybodies business nor is it appropriate to disclose my sexual orientation.

By allowing the LGBT community too use the term marriage, will it really affect heterosexual marriage? No. Will people start getting divorced and blaming it on the passing of homosexual marriage? No.

Even if you can't bring yourself too look through someone else's eyes and accept that for equality too be equality we should all have the same, then at least have the basic compassion and brain function too speak and conduct yourself in a more respectable manner on the topic of this subject than what you have displayed.

Whilst only an idiot could repudiate the title 'Mr Slippery' as an appropriate description of Mr Cameron and his obvious dislike of 'Suburban Britain'. Only a bigger idiot could deliberately emphasize the irrelevancy of same sex marriage and yet simultaneously propose support of which as compelling evidence of Mr Slippery's provocation of a surburbia that is in fact as disinterested in the subject as is appropriate.

@ TCFKAMKB - I think Peter Hitchens answered the question in the paragraphs that followed, but I'll give you my views, since you ask.

I suppose it depends on a few things. I could be pedantic here and ask how do you know the wine wasn't of a low-alcohol content (keeping with pedantry, he said half a bottle a "day", not "night", but you're right, the effect is much the same - it put him in the "amber" zone of risk)? But let's assume it was regular strength wine.

I'd say Peter Hitchens would be a hypocrite (and selfish) if he continued to drink alcohol in the event of it being banned. He'd also be a hypocrite, in my view, if he opposed any movement which proposed the restriction of alcohol - I'm almost tempted to say it'd be hypocritical of him to oppose any movement to ban alcohol outright but since he doesn't argue for an outright ban, only restriction, then I don't think it'd be fair to level an accusation of hypocrisy. Inconsistent, perhaps. However, from memory, I think he said he wouldn't be opposed in principle to any movement to ban alcohol totally. Mr.Hitchens would also be a hypocrite if he consumed this wine for the purpose of blotting out a dull, crap existence. What do you perceive the word "hypocrisy" to mean?

On the "selfish" point, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. I think you are suggesting that Peter Hitchens was being selfish for contributing towards the (legal) alcohol industry by his slightly excessive consumption. If that industry's collapse (and let's face it, many social ills would be cured at a stroke if this occurred) was dependent on him giving up half a bottle of wine per day then yes, he was, indeed, being selfish. In fact, not even "collapse". If Mr.Hitchens' giving up his half a bottle a day affected the alcohol industry's ability to function normally in any way then yes, he was being selfish. I think he's also on record as stating that he would give up alcohol totally if it would make any difference to the problems this country suffers as a result of alcohol abuse (I think these were his words - if you dispute this, I'll try and find the exact quote).

@ Mr James E Shaw.
Thats the rub though is it not. Your speak of no boundaries. then commit to one straight away. Yes it was tasteless . And probably criminal . As some distant tele communication act could address.
But the reality is different . We are ( and I mean us indigenous whites ) stymied at ever turn now by curbs on religious grounds. race grounds . And even have to tread carefully on any current affairs.
Incomers do not. So instead of complaining .join the revolution. But do not joke about it. It will offend someone.

James E Shaw,yes your quite right theres nothing new about religion jokes,its something that would not offend me either but i meant that a comedian should be able to make jokes about all areas of life,it shouldnt matter about sex,race or religion,in my view we are all equal and should be able to take a joke,so long as a joke is all it is.

I'm sure you would draw the line with leaving offensive messages on an old man's answerphone about having had sex with his granddaughter though wouldn't you?

There has been a distinct silence from the Labour Party, as such, on the redefinition of marriage. Opposing things like the abolition of national pay agreements in the public sector, while at least declining to support moves such as the redefinition of this most fundamental of institutions in the metrosexual interest: that may or may not be enough to win a General Election outright. But it is certainly enough to deny the Conservative Party an overall majority for the fifth time in a row.

That party exists purely in order to be in government. It could not survive that fifth successive denial of a clear mandate to govern. Disgruntled Tories, vote for the only party that can defeat and destroy the one that that you have rightly come to despise. You could start again from scratch after that. But with Labour visibly dependent on you, who knows what you might be able to achieve within and through a party largely created by your sort of people and, with the Blairites as good as gone, far more open to the central and local government action on which your social and cultural aspirations depend for realisation?

Even Margaret Thatcher specifically ruled out privatising the Royal Mail, “because it’s Royal”. She was right. Not merely foreign companies, but companies actually owned by foreign states, are now circling our postal service. Where is the party of publicly owned public services and of strong trade unions, to fight for our national sovereignty (both as against the EU and as against the foreign acquisition of a key national asset), for our monarchy’s direct link to every address, and for our rural communities? And to do the same against David Cameron’s desired takeover of our roads by sovereign wealth funds, which are in fact foreign states, usually oil-rich ones? Should that party emerge, what excuse would anyone have who shared any of those priorities, to decline to vote for it or even to campaign for its election? I can conceive of none.

Sunday trading was the only ever Commons defeat of Thatcher’s Premiership. Her massively corporate-funded neoliberal heirs are determined to declare it a free-for-all, compelling the little people to work seven-day weeks. Small shops, defining and defined by families and local communities, would be driven down even further. The Major Government lost by only one vote when it tried to force shop assistants and delivery drivers to work on Christmas Day. After this, that. Only one party is in a position to hold the line, the party to which USDAW, the shop workers’ union that organised so successfully against Thatcher, is still affiliated. If it does so, then it will deserve the electoral support of everyone who wants to keep Sunday special, and of everyone who favours family and local community businesses. What excuse would anyone of such mind have for withholding that support? I can see none.

In 1974, Enoch Powell told his supporters to vote Labour because of Europe. This is a 1974 moment.

Beatpoet, five days ago in the opening paragraph of "A Serious Answer To A Silly Argument" (which saw Mr Hitchens answering the replies given by someone else to questions that he had initially asked me). He referred to the case that his drinking of half a bottle of wine a night was hypocritical as nonsensical and absurd. I think that it is fair to deduce then that he doesn't consider his daily stupefying to have been selfish and I am sure that there is an abundance of supporting evidence in the index. If I am wrong then I am sure that he will correct me. Do you think that he was selfish or hypocritical?

Darren W,I think Mr Camerons politics are very lib dem or new labour,he is just like Mr Blair but without the good speech making,between them they have fooled millions of voters over the last 15 years.

I understand Mr. Hitchens’ disapproval of Mr. Cameron’s policies, but I also sometimes think Mr. Hitchens should cut him some slack. Mr. Cameron has very limited room for manoeuvre. Most of what HM government does is prepared in advance by the EU and Mr. Cameron can be in little doubt what his destiny will be if he fails to follow the course decreed from Brussels. After the demise of the democratically elected governments of Italy and Greece, can there be many readers here who still believe in the fiction of the UK as a sovereign state? If there are, perhaps they should ponder the role of European Commissioner Peter Mandelson in propping up the Labour administration of Gordon Brown. To recap, Mr. Cameron is UK Prime Minister at least in part because he is acceptable to the EU. Whilst maintaining that acceptability, he can no more pursue an independent set of objectives than the Prime Minister of Czechoslovakia could in 1968.

You could say the same thing about Mr. Hitchens. If homeowners are such a pressing priority, why is he wasting his time addressing utter non-issues like gay marriage, which he even claims will only affect a few hundred people?

I believe this "outrage" about racist jokes by people who then mock disabled children (far more in need of protection from ridicule than ethnic minorities) tells you everything you need to know about those who indulge in this behaviour.

It is clear that originally there were obviously altruistic motives behind the hostility towards racist humour and many of those who refused to indulge in it were decent people.
Now however you get the feeling that such positive motivations are largely absent from the 'trendy' middle class lib-lefties, with many seeming generally unpleasant people who only pretend outrage against racism, 'homophobia' etc because amongst their circles it is expected. The idea that they have REAL empathy for those of another race is extremely unlikely if this quality is so lacking when it comes to those as helpless as severely disabled children.

Such liberals appear to have have no genuine feelings or humanity and any beliefs they espouse instead seem hollow and displayed only to impress others of their type.
The Guardian readers may deride the working class and what they perceive as their acceptance of racist or 'homophobic' jokes but I can guarantee that amongst those working or lower middle class people you'd find an almost universal disgust at anyone who was so morally degenerate and cruel as to think it clever to laugh at a seriously disabled child.
It isn't difficult to see amongst which group of people the remains of true decency in this country reside and it isn't that which includes Russell Brand or Marcus Brigstocke*.

* the ultimate example of someone with not a modicum of talent and whose sole reason for success is that he ticks all the right BBC approved boxes.

Alan Thomas - sorry, I must have been confusing you with somone else. I think I may have become confused by all the talk of 'recruiting sargeants' on a previous thread. Incidentally, I too have a soft spot for Count Arthur Strong (not really relevant but I just thought I'd mention it).

Further to what previous commentators have posted (hello!), there does seem to be a ridiculous amount of political bias / sensitivity in the metropolitan media. James E Shaw and S Greenstreet, I agree that I didn't have the stomach myself for the Holocaust joke, it was in poor taste.

However, I still stand by the point adroitly argued by other contributers that while, say, anti-Monarchist and anti-Catholic Jokes were indeed being told in the 60s, (although not it must be noted sexual jokes relating to old people) so too were mother-in-law jokes and jokes about the Scots/English/Irish. Now they aren't (the latter). Now they are censored/ 'sanitised'.That is the point.

Alan Thomas,Thanks for that,i might try it,its funny but these days we have so many channels but the quality is very poor,when we just had 3 channels to choose from there always seemed to be something good on the box.

James E Shaw,yes your quite right theres nothing new about religion jokes,its something that would not offend me either but i meant that a comedian should be able to make jokes about all areas of life,it shouldnt matter about sex,race or religion,in my view we are all equal and should be able to take a joke,so long as a joke is all it is.

@Joe Davy - Mr Hitchen's will never be right about the drugs issue because it is primarily one of personal choice, I've no beef with him disliking drugs himself, that's his personal choice but you cannot pretend to be on the side of liberty as he so often does and then praise prohibition which is nothing other than an authoritarian stance that refuses to acknowledge what someone can or can't do with their own body, it's just ludicrous in the extreme..

Anyone with a true moral standpoint will advocate that freedom comes first especially where that concerns your own body, if you want to argue whether drugs themselves are selfish then you better stop all your own personal habits that you enjoy, which may include tucking into a nice juicy t-bone steak (which incidentally involves the sacrificing of an animals life....drugs don't) , going for a slap up curry on a Friday night, enjoying a few jars down the pub with friends, are they not themselves selfish acts by Mr Hitchen's standards?

I suggest that you go and review the whole history of the war on drugs, starting with the UN single narcotic act of 1961 and the real reason behind it, it's all about divide and rule and the profits of Big Pharma and how they lose out when people take the drugs that are currently considered illegal, I mean seriously how can a plant be illegal, are seriously falling for this baloney?

For the record also I think that Brand acted like a stupid little school boy who got caught smoking behind the bike sheds and lost the argument from the word go when he could've produced constructive and logical points to back up something that really needed to be argued, so yes I agree wholeheartedly Hitchen's won the argument flat out in that respect.

I notice in his column that PH has neglected to mention that he called Brand "a selfish kid" (and then repeated it with conviction). It was that insult that gave Brand (who i loathe by the way) the chance to resort to ad hominem in kind and avoid answering a perfectly valid point. And it is disingenuous for PH to play this down. When asked during the Mathew Parris row whether "sticks and stones may hurt my bones" applied in that situation PH went on to say how untrue that saying was and how as someone who uses words to hurt people he knows full well what words can do. Like I said before, an own goal.

Mr. Slippery is giving the distinct impression that he regards 'gay marriage' as a more pressing priority than the thousands of households in every corner of this land who wonder if they are going to make it to the end of the month and if they'll still have a home in six months time.

Peter...a little late but agree wholeheartedly with you column on 11March (Gay Marriage). Govt proposals fly in the face of christian teachings, consistent over thousands of years. No evidence has been put forward of widespread publc support for gay marriage, rather there is evidence that more people oppose the move rather than support it. I find it quite interesting that David Cameron is now more aligned to the likes of Peter Tatchell than he is with the vast moral majority. Increasingly it is difficult to trust a man who is appears so shallow in his values, beliefs and his word (this subject, europe, crime, welfare and human rights reform, and more). As a conservative voter for many (probably not any more though after the performance of the tories in coalition), the really deeply dispiriting thing for me and others I know is that we seem to have little choice between our so-called political leaders, each of whom I find incredibly unimpressive; what do they each stand for, apart from themselves. So David Cameron can continue to destroy the sanctity of marriage (and liberalise to the point of distinction some of the values and traditions we've held as so important in the past) - but not in my name, nor I suspect in the name of many of my fellow citizens....

Sydney Greenstreet posted the following: 'David Cameron represents everything that is good and decent about modern conservatism. Mr Cameron is only a fraud to the hard-right fringe of the Tory Party who for some obscure reason resist openly supporting the BNP; an avowedly old-fashioned conservative political organisation.'

I am interested to know your definition of 'conservative': if you mean Communist. I would agree. I suggest you visit the BNP website and then the BCP website. When I did so a few years ago, apart from the issue of racism, they were virtually identical. I suggest you visit Youtube and listen to a Start the Week edition covering conservatism for a better definition!

PH is right, taking drugs is a selfish act, I was undecided before I watched the debate but think now that drugs should not be decriminalised, but that they should be supplied by the government to drug addicts (through doctors), thus cutting out the crime associated with supply. Or offered a place on a drugs rehabilitation program (nb. not alternative drug therapy like methadone, actual cessation or bust)

I must also note the proven link between drugs cartels and the bank cartels, much more needs to be done to resolve the scourge of the banking industry!

Beatpoet, it is my understanding that this is Mr Hitchens' position, but I may be wrong. In the youtube debate, Emily Maitlis puts a summary of what Mr Hitchens had just said to Russell Brand:

"I think you were being called a selfish kid there."

Mr Hitchens then adds (even though Russell Brand had twice reminded us that he doesn't use drugs anymore):

"He most certainly is."

When he wrote about Amy Winehouse on March 10, Mr Hitchens referred to an elite that is crammed with past and present illegal drug users. Although he didn't overlty suggest that past drug users were selfish in that instance, I am sure that he has done before but I really can't be bothered trawling through the index to find out where. It may be that he only argues that it is only previous drug users who support legalisation that are selfish. That would mean though that those who have never taken drugs before but are still in support of legalisation are selfish as well, which kind of undermines his argument that the motives of the "drugs lobby" are almost invariably based on self-interest.

None of that really matters though, for Mr Hitchens claims that his previous alcohol consumption was never selfish, and he apparently still fails to see the hypocrisy.

Mr Williamson, tests that followed a slightly raised liver enzyme have shown that my drinking organ is perfectly healthy, but I thank you for your concern. As I am sure you are aware, factors such as age, weight and diet can all effect how intoxicated someone becomes when they drink alcohol, although I think that in my case I am a lightweight due to the fact that I very rarely drink. I don't know about you but I think that most people, if they only drank once or twice a year, would need little alcohol before they began to feel the effects. Besides, half a bottle of wine is far more than half a glass.

I should add that when I say noticeably intoxicated I don't mean slurred speech, being sick or trying to start a fight, but more a change in mood, physical sensation or motor skills, no matter how sublte, that is percievable to the person who is drinking. I also think that this should be the real point at which somebody is no longer fit to drive, which brings me back to my main point. The amount of alcohol that Mr Hitchens used to drink would be well over the legal drink/drive limit which means that there must have been at least some intoxication, or stupification, that would make his actions, under his own logic, incredibly selfish. Do you not agree Mr Williamson? Or do you think that drinking alcohol and the use of drugs are not necessarily selfish actions?

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.